What the top agents bought

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose valuable behavioral context absent from structured fields: $0.01 per call and that calls will return 402 without payment configured. However, it omits return format, pagination, rate limits, and auth details for a read endpoint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before adding the pricing caveat. 'The most-bought Cookin endpoint' leans slightly promotional but doubles as a selection cue, so little is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, scope, and the critical payment failure mode. What it returns is only gestured at ('quality signals'), but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the implied 'most recent' default scope, which it does state.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Tokens the top Cookin trading agents bought most recently, with quality signals'), which clearly differs from token_trades (individual trades) or list_new_tokens (recency of listing). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names a sibling to explicitly disambiguate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Answers what proven strategies are doing right now' implies a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition, and does not contrast with scan_token, token_trades, or list_pumping_tokens. Usage is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.